HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Savannahmann » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Savannahmann

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Aug 30, 2007, 11:50 PM
Number of posts: 3,111

Journal Archives

Women Sterilized by California Prisons, without permission.

I almost didn't post this, under the assumption that someone else must have. But I didn't see it in the last few pages. If it is a duplicate, I apologize.

I am fairly good with words. I like to think I am above average in my ability to make a good, logical, persuasive argument on issues I care about. I often post that morals and principles not party should guide our policy discussion. Right now, I am finding it harder to write words than I have since called upon to write my Mother's obituary.

The story, a Doctor in a California Women's Prison waits and discusses Tubal Ligation, the slicing of the fallopian tubes, on the table moments before the birth of the baby.

Doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 female inmates from 2006 to 2010 without required state approvals, The Center for Investigative Reporting has found.

At least 148 women received tubal ligations in violation of prison rules during those five years – and there are perhaps 100 more dating back to the late 1990s, according to state documents and interviews.

From 1997 to 2010, the state paid doctors $147,460 to perform the procedure, according to a database of contracted medical services for state prisoners.


The Doctor in question was interviewed. His answer is enough to make me sick to my stomach.

During an interview with CIR, Heinrich said he provided an important service to poor women who faced health risks in future pregnancies because of past cesarean sections. The 69-year-old Bay Area physician denied pressuring anyone and expressed surprise that local contract doctors had charged for the surgeries. He described the $147,460 total as minimal.

Over a 10-year period, that isn’t a huge amount of money,” Heinrich said, “compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more.”

I can not express my feelings well enough to even try here. I don't possess the words. I don't have the skills with the language. Any word seems too mild. Fury? Rage? Disgust? None of them come close to adequately conveying my emotional response to this barbarism.
Posted by Savannahmann | Tue Jul 9, 2013, 01:35 PM (0 replies)

Laws, and Morals

Prior to the beginning of the Civil War, it was against the law to assist an escaped slave. Yet many did so, creating the Underground Railroad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad

Moral right trumped legal right in history. We celebrate those who participated, and who assisted in the escape of slaves today. It is a matter of pride to claim that your descendants assisted slaves in the escape from their captivity when it was against the law to do so. But why are we cheering that today? Why do we lionize those people today when they broke the law? The law is what is important, not the moral justification right? That is the answer we get today, that if you break the law, you must answer for your crimes. I'm glad people didn't think so then. BTW My ancestors came to this nation after this event in history, so I'm not a descendant of that particular honor.

Underground organizations existed in World War II to help hide Jews, look at Anne Frank. We demonize the Nazi's, why? They were just obeying and enforcing the laws right? There can never be a moral justification to disobey the law. If you break the law, you are morally bound to stand for your crimes. You can make whatever excuses you want while we are preparing the hangman's noose.

So history clearly shows us that the moral not only trumps the legislative right, but history most often lauds those who participate in the moral, demonizing those who obediently enforce the immoral laws. People who escape from Myanmar (Burma) are considered refugees, morally we are supposed to help, to protect them. Many here would in the interest of consistency of argument, have to demand that they return home to face justice, because they broke the law in leaving like they did.

All those undocumented workers who are in our nation now. They entered illegally, they broke the law. They left their nations without proper travel documents, they broke the law there. Obviously, our demands that the letter of the law be obeyed means we are now going to have to join the fucking Republicans in opposing any efforts to legalize the issue after the fact. But we aren't doing that are we? We're arguing that the moral is more important than the legal.

St. Augustine taught that the unjust law, was no law. Moral and just went hand in hand, and should trump the letter of the law. History is replete with examples of this, and those examples are lauded by history. From the Underground Railroad, to the hiding and escape of the Jews from Europe. From dissidents who escaped the Chinese, Soviets, North Koreans, and even the Cubans. We fight to protect those people, but when one of ours does it, then it is a violation of the law, and we demand him back and demand he stand trial. Demands we ignored from other nations, demands we were morally bound to ignore.

Think about your positions on these issues my friends, think and consider what history will write about you. I prefer to side with Morality, because that is the one that I honestly believe is the one course of action I can live with. It's the one that history teaches me is the right one, and the one that my faith in human rights says is the supreme consideration.
Posted by Savannahmann | Mon Jul 8, 2013, 10:26 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1